Source confusion (source misattribution) occurs when someone accurately remembers information but incorrectly recalls its origin. The memory content remains intact, but contextual details about where, when, or from whom the information came are lost or distorted. This happens because memories for content and memories for context operate through different neural pathways.
When to Use
Legal proceedings → Verify eyewitness testimony source claims, not just facts recalled
Journalism/research → Implement rigorous source documentation and fact-checking
Personal decision-making → Question confidence in memory origins before acting
関連 Skill
Team communication → Document decisions/ideas to prevent attribution confusion
Marketing claims → Verify where "facts" about competitors actually originated
Medical history → Confirm sources of symptom reports and treatment information
When to Avoid
Pure content verification → When origin doesn't matter, only accuracy of information
Real-time attribution → When source is immediately verifiable and unambiguous
Over-skepticism risk → When excessive doubt undermines necessary trust
Blame assignment → Using source confusion as excuse for deliberate misattribution
Execution Steps
1. Recognize High-Risk Contexts
Identify situations where source confusion is most likely: cognitive overload, emotional intensity, time delays, multiple similar sources, or imagined/visualized content.
Trigger Question: When was I most recently tired, stressed, or processing multiple similar inputs?
2. Document Sources in Real-Time
Capture source attribution immediately when receiving information. Don't rely on later reconstruction.
Method: Note format (conversation/email/article), person/publication, date/time, context
Tool Examples: Citation managers, meeting notes with attribution, timestamped logs
3. Distinguish Content from Context Memory
Separately verify: (1) Is the information accurate? (2) Is the source attribution accurate?
Reality Check: "I remember this fact, but do I actually remember WHERE I learned it?"
4. Test Source Memory Confidence
Use calibrated confidence scales (0-100%) for source attribution claims. Research shows people overestimate source memory accuracy.
Calibration Check: When 90% confident about source, actual accuracy ~70%
5. Implement Cross-Verification
For high-stakes decisions, verify source claims through independent channels: original documents, multiple witnesses, digital trails.
Legal Standard: Corroborate eyewitness source claims with physical evidence
Confirmation Bias → Seeking information confirming beliefs (can lead to selective source memory)
Cryptomnesia → Specific form of source confusion involving plagiarism without awareness
Measurement & Validation
Source monitoring tests → Present mixed information, later test source attribution accuracy
Eyewitness accuracy studies → Compare claimed source (saw vs. heard) with objective evidence
Citation audit → Verify source attributions in research papers or reports
Confidence calibration → Compare confidence ratings with actual source memory accuracy
Documentary evidence → Physical/digital records confirming or contradicting source claims
Mental Model
Think of source confusion as having a book (content) but losing the bookmark (context). The information exists intact in memory, but the "metadata" about its origin is missing or corrupted. Just as you might remember a fact from reading but forget whether it was a book, article, or conversation, source confusion means the content survived while the context faded.
Additional Notes
Research by Elizabeth Loftus demonstrates source confusion is a primary mechanism for false memory formation in legal contexts. The misinformation effect often works through source confusion: people remember post-event suggestions but misattribute them to the original event. This has profound implications for eyewitness testimony reliability, making corroboration essential rather than optional.
Sources
Loftus, E.F. (1975-2025) - Extensive research on eyewitness testimony and memory distortion